Do you think Budda Baker got paid by a college?

https://mobile.twitter.com/buddabaker32 ... 2803516416Budda Baker posted this on twitter, his new car, a brand new Lamborghini, either his family is really rich or he got paid by a college, and especially with all the news of him getting offered by every school in the PAC-12, it sounds a little more like he got paid

Most likely, and I think it's dumb that the NCAA is against it. Most of the best college players aren't there for the education, they are there for a chance at the NFL and many of them don't make it. I also think it's interesting that the NFL gets raked over the coals for player safety when those players have health care for life and earn millions. College players are exposed to the same risks/dangers and all they get is a free education while the NCAA brings in billions. If some guy gets a bit of cash or a car, big deal.

Further, paying players is extremely widespread in college football in spite of the rules, and is almost always outside the control of the coaching staff or administration. Instead of saying no, the NCAA should embrace the idea and regulate it, perhaps giving teams a salary cap structure of some kind to even things out. Doing so would undercut the effectiveness of boosters, and quite frankly, I think these players earn that money. Playing football while maintaining grades is like having two full time jobs, and if you are especially gifted there is a hefty dollar amount that you are worth to a school, so it's only fair to pay the players. IMO.

My guess is that's not really his car, and he just saw it sitting in a parking lot and took a picture in front of it.

Btw, he's gonna be a Duck. Sounds like its going to come down to an Oregon vs UCLA battle.

I don't doubt for a second that colleges offer all kinds of things to kids, but if he got paid by a college and bought that car he's got to be the stupidest kid in America. And from what I've heard, he's actually a pretty bright kid.

JSeahawks wrote:My guess is that's not really his car, and he just saw it sitting in a parking lot and took a picture in front of it.

Btw, he's gonna be a Duck. Sounds like its going to come down to an Oregon vs UCLA battle, but of course its still awfully early.

I don't doubt for a second that colleges offer all kinds of things to kids, but if he got paid by a college and bought that car he's got to be the stupidest kid in America. And from what I've heard, he's actually a pretty bright kid.

That would be crazy if UCLA got budda baker and Myles Jack, Jim mora is building a good program down there

kearly wrote:Most likely, and I think it's dumb that the NCAA is against it. Most of the best college players aren't there for the education, they are there for a chance at the NFL and many of them don't make it. I also think it's interesting that the NFL gets raked over the coals for player safety when those players have health care for life and earn millions. College players are exposed to the same risks/dangers and all they get is a free education while the NCAA brings in billions. If some guy gets a bit of cash or a car, big deal.

Further, paying players is extremely widespread in college football in spite of the rules, and is almost always outside the control of the coaching staff or administration. Instead of saying no, the NCAA should embrace the idea and regulate it, perhaps giving teams a salary cap structure of some kind to even things out. Doing so would undercut the effectiveness of boosters, and quite frankly, I think these players earn that money. Playing football while maintaining grades is like having two full time jobs, and if you are especially gifted there is a hefty dollar amount that you are worth to a school, so it's only fair to pay the players. IMO.

Paying the players will not stop unscrupulous people from still paying kids to go to a certain school and imo would probably encourage more of said activity. Plus the NCAA would have to add even more rules and have to have even more oversight over schools they can't possibly hope to regulate now.I've seen this cry for paying these kids who are already on scholarship and I just don't agree with it. I don't think its going to solve anything but I do think it would be a big mess.

That has got to be a joke. Just the mere thought of a high school kid with a $400k+ Lamborghini Aventador is enough to make my head explode. Pretty sure he just saw the car somewhere and stopped for a pic.

Even if he is getting paid by a school, it would not be enough to make payments on an Aventador.

Missing_Clink wrote:That has got to be a joke. Just the mere thought of a high school kid with a $400k+ Lamborghini Aventador is enough to make my head explode. Pretty sure he just saw the car somewhere and stopped for a pic.

Even if he is getting paid by a school, it would not be enough to make payments on an Aventador.

I doubt it's his car to be honest, but I had a buddy who grew up in Scottsdale and a ton of kids there had Lamborghini and Ferraris. It was nuts.

Natethegreat wrote:Paying the players will not stop unscrupulous people from still paying kids to go to a certain school and imo would probably encourage more of said activity. Plus the NCAA would have to add even more rules and have to have even more oversight over schools they can't possibly hope to regulate now.I've seen this cry for paying these kids who are already on scholarship and I just don't agree with it. I don't think its going to solve anything but I do think it would be a big mess.

It wouldn't stop it, but it would undercut it. In the meantime we have a status quo that is blatantly unfair to coaches and schools that end up being whacked by "death penalty" rules that they didn't deserve, and you have players that earn pennies on the dollar compared to what they bring in to the NCAA.

The enforcement of those rules is a joke, anyway. UW's program took a huge blow as a result of some random booster in the early 90s and never truly recovered from it. USC is experiencing a similar situation right now. I guess you could argue that it's good for "turnover" in a powerhouse sport, but I don't like it that innocent people are punished for it. And I think the players deserve some money given the risk and earnings involved.

I like the mystique of "college sports", but in many ways the structure of them is flawed compared to a professional sports franchise. In a perfect world, we'd see a professional sports type structure (like the minor leagues in MLB) in the more marketable college sports, while maintaining the school identities. In Europe and many other places, schools are more specialized and instead of just going to college young people go to specialized schools or seek apprenticeships. Sports is viewed in much the same way over there, and young players hit the "professional" ranks at a younger age. I think it's time we did the same, and start viewing college sports from an apprenticeship view instead of pretending it's all about them having fun and getting a free education.

I understand the arguments for not wanting to pay/regulate pay of players.

But why not allow players to earn what they can? Sell autographs/memorabilia, keep any gifts, etc. If my talent is in computer languages and I use that talent to make money, it is totally acceptable. But if I am an athlete and use that talent to make money, I get banned from my field?

What good does that do for student athletes, who might have to switch career paths because of the NCAA and are certainly being denied the opportunity to get a head start on (potentially) their career? What good does it do for the schools that have to monitor their athletes and boosters just to avoid sanctions? Seems like a lot of work just to make sure student athletes are broke.

Sarlacc, on comparing .NET to Soccer: And why not? It's a bunch of people running around in circles, feigning pain, and never scoring.

Snohomie, it's a fair point, but I'd have to think allowing students to start selling memorabilia and what not begins a path towards shady business practice. What's to stop a big university from recruiting all 5-star high school prospects with the promise that if they do well enough they can "sell" an autograph for $5000 a signature, i.e. buying athletes.

I'm all for increasing stipend pay of the student athlete, but to turn it into a pure business form would hurt the overall integrity of the sport and the purpose of going to college in the first place, imo.

No fair, Recon. How am I supposed to debate with you when all I can do is stare at that avatar? *deep breath* Let's try this again.

What's the problem if a coach does tell a player "If you play at Central Washington University, your autographs will be worth 5 bucks a pop. If you play at UW, it's 500 a pop"? I mean, big schools already have huge advantages over smaller schools (and, of course, smaller schools have their own) such as appearing on TV more often, networking opportunities, more attention from NFL scouts, etc. For the (vast majority) of players (in all sports) who wouldn't make money, that teaches them an important lesson about how little their athletic prowess will matter when they've graduated. Furthermore, this happens in other fields too. I have a couple friends who chose a certain school because that school had unique programs that placed students with (paid) internships in a field related to their degree.

All we're talking about is letting kids get a head start on entering their industry. You would still need to make sure schools don't pay players to sign them, I'm just talking about eliminating the wall preventing players from essentially working in their industry while attending college.

And what is the purpose of going to college, anyways? Go and ask students why they're in school - it'll go something like this "To get a (specific) degree" - why do you want that "So I can get a job in a specific field when I graduate" why do you want that "So I can make money". Very few kids pay 20-150k just for learning. Hell, you'd probably learn more by spending 4 years reading Wikipedia 40 hours a week. Kids pay that money so they can get a good job - the ones with a plan pay that money so they can work in a specific field. That's the reality of a job market that makes a Bachelors degree a pre-requisite for almost any inexperienced job-seeker trying to get a decent job - people with little interesting in academics (but a strong interest in not being poor) go to college to eventually make money. We just don't restrict their ability to work in certain industries while they're in school.

IMO, that is a MUCH better solution that simply upping the stipends. For one, almost all college athletic programs cost money, so by upping the stipends would lead to schools shutting down certain programs or raising tuition rates. This would keep costs the same for schools. Second, it educates athletes about the nature of sports as a business - a lesson potential professional athletes should learn in school. Third, it gives good college / poor pro players (like Chris Leak) what could be their best chance to make good money... ever! Fourth, it allows players to build resumes for the sports industry through things such as self-marketing, coaching clinics (for pay!), TV appearances, etc. Lastly, it reduces (not eliminates) the regulatory burden for schools and the NCAA.

This romanticized notion of the amateur athlete comes from outdated ideas that people go to college because they are academics and play sports because it is their last chance to really do so. Well, most people who can afford college go to college to make money (and can make money while attending college) and college is no longer the last chance for players to play team sports at a high level.

Sarlacc, on comparing .NET to Soccer: And why not? It's a bunch of people running around in circles, feigning pain, and never scoring.

kearly wrote:Most likely, and I think it's dumb that the NCAA is against it. Most of the best college players aren't there for the education, they are there for a chance at the NFL and many of them don't make it. I also think it's interesting that the NFL gets raked over the coals for player safety when those players have health care for life and earn millions. College players are exposed to the same risks/dangers and all they get is a free education while the NCAA brings in billions. If some guy gets a bit of cash or a car, big deal.

Further, paying players is extremely widespread in college football in spite of the rules, and is almost always outside the control of the coaching staff or administration. Instead of saying no, the NCAA should embrace the idea and regulate it, perhaps giving teams a salary cap structure of some kind to even things out. Doing so would undercut the effectiveness of boosters, and quite frankly, I think these players earn that money. Playing football while maintaining grades is like having two full time jobs, and if you are especially gifted there is a hefty dollar amount that you are worth to a school, so it's only fair to pay the players. IMO.

All they get is a free education? LOL.... I would say thats a pretty good deal considering most of those athlete's won't make the Pro's.

Hasselbeck wrote:Matt Flynn should be our starter. Wilson is nothing more than a backup and will never amount to anything in this league.

Snohomie wrote:No fair, Recon. How am I supposed to debate with you when all I can do is stare at that avatar? *deep breath* Let's try this again.

What's the problem if a coach does tell a player "If you play at Central Washington University, your autographs will be worth 5 bucks a pop. If you play at UW, it's 500 a pop"? I mean, big schools already have huge advantages over smaller schools (and, of course, smaller schools have their own) such as appearing on TV more often, networking opportunities, more attention from NFL scouts, etc. For the (vast majority) of players (in all sports) who wouldn't make money, that teaches them an important lesson about how little their athletic prowess will matter when they've graduated. Furthermore, this happens in other fields too. I have a couple friends who chose a certain school because that school had unique programs that placed students with (paid) internships in a field related to their degree.

All we're talking about is letting kids get a head start on entering their industry. You would still need to make sure schools don't pay players to sign them, I'm just talking about eliminating the wall preventing players from essentially working in their industry while attending college.

And what is the purpose of going to college, anyways? Go and ask students why they're in school - it'll go something like this "To get a (specific) degree" - why do you want that "So I can get a job in a specific field when I graduate" why do you want that "So I can make money". Very few kids pay 20-150k just for learning. Hell, you'd probably learn more by spending 4 years reading Wikipedia 40 hours a week. Kids pay that money so they can get a good job - the ones with a plan pay that money so they can work in a specific field. That's the reality of a job market that makes a Bachelors degree a pre-requisite for almost any inexperienced job-seeker trying to get a decent job - people with little interesting in academics (but a strong interest in not being poor) go to college to eventually make money. We just don't restrict their ability to work in certain industries while they're in school.

IMO, that is a MUCH better solution that simply upping the stipends. For one, almost all college athletic programs cost money, so by upping the stipends would lead to schools shutting down certain programs or raising tuition rates. This would keep costs the same for schools. Second, it educates athletes about the nature of sports as a business - a lesson potential professional athletes should learn in school. Third, it gives good college / poor pro players (like Chris Leak) what could be their best chance to make good money... ever! Fourth, it allows players to build resumes for the sports industry through things such as self-marketing, coaching clinics (for pay!), TV appearances, etc. Lastly, it reduces (not eliminates) the regulatory burden for schools and the NCAA.

This romanticized notion of the amateur athlete comes from outdated ideas that people go to college because they are academics and play sports because it is their last chance to really do so. Well, most people who can afford college go to college to make money (and can make money while attending college) and college is no longer the last chance for players to play team sports at a high level.

Regarding the pay for signature, which seems to be the main thing we're discussing, I like the idea of trying to maintain a level playing field across the NCAA instead of furthering the talent level between the big universities and smaller ones (even other D1 schools). My main concern with the pay for a signature aspect is how it could be used as a bribery recruiting tactic. Let’s say a recruiter is at a players house and tells him if you play at Alabama, our richest (private) supporter would like to pay you $500 for 100 signatures to give his kids elementary school (or some crap like that). That’s a $50,000 reason to go play for that school. Maybe I am thinking too outlandish and I’m letting the movie Blue Chips get to my head but when cash starts changing hands between the student and public, it opens the doors for even more unethical business practice, requiring more regulatory burden on the university to keep things fair, not less.

The harsh reality is that is only about 1% of student athletes go on to play professionally, so it's not exactly harming these students future if they aren't treated as such. For the other 99%, they walk away from their universities with a college degree IF they understand they are not there to play sports professionally. Already, I feel student-athletes devotes to much time to being professional athletes instead of focusing on their college degree. In an attempt to help guide the other 99% to a successful future (and the 1% who have short professional careers), I'd rather colleges promote academics over any attempt to prepare them to be a professional athlete and build their image.

I do agree that these programs cost the university lots of money which is why I don't get the overall argument that the NCAA is making billions of dollars off them (not that you brought that up). In many cases, sports like football and basketball have been showed to have a huge positive affect on helping other programs in the university from going under.

Lastly (and not necessarily directed at you, Snohomie), boo-freaking-hoo that these athletes having to play sports as a way of paying for college. I do not get all the sympathy these players get from some people because their sport requires so much time in their lives. So does the waitress job another student has to have while going to school or the 5 years in the military another student uses to pay for schooling. For the 1%, I get it, they probably deserve more than a free education, but for 99% of these students, a full-ride scholarship if well worth any amount a time spent on a sport many would (and do) play for free.

Lol no college would ever be that stupid to actually buy a player a Lambo. It would be way too easy to get caught that way. Considering he plays for Bellevue I would say their is a good chance his parents make a pretty penny.